I am a parent judge who’s judged at quite a few tournaments. Please be clear and explain your arguments thoroughly (no jargon). Please check your ego at the door! I look forward to a great round.

I am a parent judge with multiple years of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, and oratory skills. POI's are OK, abusive heckling - not ok. Please do not spread. Please be respectful during the round.

Hello, this is my second year judging as a parent judge.

I borrowed this from Jessica Jung/Trevor Greenan, but I find that I vote in this order:
1. conceded arguments
2. arguments with warrants and substantive analysis
3. arguments with in-round weighing/framing
4. arguments with implicit clash/framing

Please speak clearly and not too fast. As you can see from my voting order, clear articulation of arguments along with a good and clear clash of ideas is central in gaining my ballot. Which means if you spread and I can't follow your arguments, you may not get the benefit of your argument.

I've basic familiarity with theoretical arguments (in the form of a theory shell). Having said that I've enough familiarity so that you don't have to spend time explaining how theory shell works -- or how to weight it - get straight into the substance of the abuse. Please only run it if you believe there are genuine grounds to do so. No friv theory.

I generally do not disclose after rounds unless required by tournament (elimination rounds etc.)

Overall, debate is about ideas, and I would love to hear yours. Have fun!

Experience: LD Debate 4 years in High School. Presently a coach for both speech and debate.

Paradigm: I try to avoid judge intervention as much as possible. Therefore I don't have any hard rules such as "voting on framework". It is up to the competitors to make well reasoned arguments why their arguments have priority on the ballot within the hierarchy of other arguments in the round.

This means that for an argument to make it to the ballot it must be fully supported throughout the round by the debater, cradle to grave. Extending arguments is very important, especially in the case of a dropped argument or a cross application.

Spreading: I generally don't like speed reading because it usually used at the expense of eloquence. However context is important so at circuit tournaments it might be acceptable if you really feel it is important to your round.

Finally, if something isn't read it doesn't go on the flow. For example, if you say "I have a card that proves this" but do not read that card, it will not go on the flow.

I'm a parent judge with a few years of experience. That being said, treat me as you would any other lay judge: refrain from speed, jargon etc.

I am a parent judge and my child has been debating for a few years so I am familiar with the basics of debate. I have an open mind and keep my biases (which are humanly unavoidable) outside of the door while I am judging. I intend to be tabula rasa.

What matters to me?

I like POIs.

No heckling. I don't think it is necessary. If you have something, mention it in your speech.

Don't spread please, you have enough time to get your point across. Spreading decreases your speaker points.

Tech > truth- the details of which I just learned recently from my child. I am a lay judge still.

Please explain complex debate jargon in a way that's intuitive. If it makes sense to me, I will buy it.

Theory shells are OK. Please take the time to explain all the parts. If you can convince me that there was genuine abuse in the round, I will buy it. No friv theory.

The purpose of debate is education but any theory shells that I buy will be considered first.

.No Ks. I don't know many Ks and likely will not be able to judge to my full ability if you bring one up.

Stay topical.

Weigh your impacts well so that I don't have to do the thinking for my ballot. Define the weighing mechanism clearly and if there is conflict, prove that you win under both. Don't make the whole debate about it.

Make sure to signpost and stick to your order. Keep structure in mind during your speeches so that my flow is organized. It will make it easier to decide the ballot.

Please respect your opponents' pronouns and don't assume anything that they have not confirmed themselves. I expect a civil yet passionate debate.

Have fun debating!

I was a four year policy debater in high school, but that was more than 30 years ago. I aim to be tabula rasa. I appreciate clear explanations of arguments and how they interact with other arguments made by partners and opponents.

Hello reader, my name is Joel Brown (he/him/his)!

I competed in Policy and Parli on a very lay circuit in high school, and then I competed in Parli and LD in college at Chabot College and at the University of the Pacific. I was also an assistant Parli coach at Washington High School for a year. Altogether, I have a fair amount of experience with policy-style debate.

I try to be impartial about what arguments or strategies you choose to deploy in the round, but I do care that you deploy them well - provide warrants for your arguments, and provide clear decision calculus in the rebuttals. Specifically, don't just link your arguments to x impact, there needs to be an explicit weighing of the impacts in the round.

I'm able to keep up with spreading for the most part, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed as this often impacts your argument quality and consequently your speaker points too.

I'm game for theory debate, but I expect a clear abuse story outlined in the standards that relate to your impacts in the context of the round. I'm not predisposed to either proven or potential abuse threshold, as both have real impacts - hash out the threshold question in the round and then explain your abuse story from there.

Disad/Counterplan debates are also a great option - go with whatever you think fits the round best or what you're most comfortable with. All counterplans MUST be functionally mutually exclusive with the plan or else the perm is terminal defense that I will vote on as the easiest out in the round.

I also think case debate has become something of a lost art, meaning that you can win terminal defense in front of me so long as you frame it correctly and pair it with turns. When it comes to case debate, I won't automatically vote on a risk of offense if that offense is predicated on a claim with missing/dubious warrants.

I frequently ran kritiks as a competitor and I enjoy judging rounds where critical arguments are made on either side, but that doesn't mean I automatically know the lit base you're citing inside and out - my flow benefits from 1) slowing down when introducing your thesis and/or framework at the top 2) presenting a well-developed link story that indicts the specific actions of your opponents case 3) explaining how your alt solves the K per the framework. I am most familiar with critical arguments pertaining to capitalism, race, gender, colonialism, biopower, and the environment. I am less well-versed in other literature, but I can usually track a well-explained and cohesive thesis for the most part.

Round vision is key to wining in front of me - PLEASE COLLAPSE IN THE BLOCK/PMR OR ELSE IT BECOMES OBJECTIVELY DIFFICULT FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU. It is both easier and more compelling for me to vote for the team that identifies and collapses to a few points of key offense than for the team that keeps doing line-by-line in the rebuttals without providing coherent impact calculus.

Feel free to ask any further questions before the round!

Most important: No spreading. Be respectful to your opponents.

I am not a former debater or a technical judge. As such, if you use technical terms of debate, please briefly define them. I have two years experience judging high school debate.

Regarding my background, I am a marriage and family therapist. Before that I worked as an editor at a legal magazine. Prior to that I got my doctorate in English literature. All of this is to say I have spent my life listening to and analyzing language and argument/story structure. I will base my decision on how coherent your argument is, how well you support it, and how well counter your opponent's arguments. I take careful notes during each speaker's speech and pay attention to flow and dropped arguments.

I am a lay judge, i have been judging for 3 years. My preferences:

1) Speak clearly and slowly to build and argue your contentions

2) Prefer No Theory or Ks

Be courteous in your questioning and speaking.

I am a lay parent judge.

I evaluate arguments based on logic (tech > truth).

I prefer that participants speak at a conversational rate rather than spreading. It is important for me to understand the arguments and all the finer points should be highlighted so that my flow reflects that.

Be courteous. Modulate your volume.

1. my judging background:

1. I have judged twice before so relatively a novice judge (no pun intended), but I have participated and won Extempore and debate competitions in High school days and have a good public speaking skills. I like eloquence.
2. What do I value most in debate rounds:
1. I value facts and its clear/concise delivery. No lengthy explanations. To the point-crisp and clear facts with reasonable speed. Cannot grasp fast speakers.

3. Speaker Speed

1. Normal speed ..meaning - as long as words are separated, I am okay. If you feel you are running while speaking, you are fast for me. You may jog, I will try to lower my hand to indicate to slow down.

4. Do you understand debate jargon, or should students be careful to spell things out for you?

1. Please do spell out for me for now. May be I will get a hang of it soon.

5. How do you view speaker points?

1. Speaker points are judging your abilities as speaker so if you are eloquent, clear and concise - you get it. On the other side, too much repetitive stuff or too fast in speed (to the point, I cannot understand what you are saying) goes against. Using effective use of time is important. I view negatively, going over time limit or underutilizing time (more than a minute of time not used)

6. How do you view cross-examination time?

1. It is an important segment as other way to put across your point.

I am currently a third year law student, I am taking the California Bar Exam this summer, and I have a B.A. in Philosophy with a minor in Sociology. I think social justice is a serious issue, especially in our country today. If you can make an argument related to it I’ll be more likely to vote for you. I have never competed in debate myself, I have judged at Stanford a handful of times, and I am not a coach. I am taking notes on an Excel sheet. If you want me to open different tabs for sections of the debate I am happy to do that but you need to tell me what they are and when to shift.

Speaker points:

Respect and professionalism are key in debate and in life. Debate is not a competitive, verbal abuse match. Debaters will be punished on speaker points for being rude or abusive. Toxic masculinity, racism, and microaggressions are real and I take them very seriously. My job is to oversee this round as well as protect everyone participating. That said, I have the right to stop the round as I see fit. Example: saying your opponent is wrong or is misguided is fine. Saying they are stupid is not. Laughing at opponents is bullying and unprofessional. Don’t do it.

Theory:

I do not have experience evaluating debate theory, but as far as I understand, it is similar to legal statutory interpretation. So, as long as you’re clear I’m happy to hear your arguments.

Kritiques:

Here are the family of things I’m familiar with: gender theory, Marxism, critical race theory, and other moral philosophical theories. That said, I’ve never evaluated these in a debate before, but I’m more than happy to be walked through it by debaters.

Case:

I much prefer good case debate with solid warrants. There is no verifiable evidence in Parli but please let’s now abuse that. I will gut check on obviously false stuff but don’t expect me to know the exact percentage of a random subsidy. The Affirmative is not required to stick with two advantages. I’m fine with perception debates. Terminalized impacts matter.

CP/Permutations:

Permutations are fine, but keep in mind that my legal education shapes how I approach them. That is, I’m likely to be very literal about the question of mutual exclusivity. Counterplans should be real. It will be hard to get me to say that everyone should get a farm subsidy and a cookie is enough to vote. Give me something real to distinguish the CP from the plan.

POI:

Teams are free to either (1) turn their camera on and say out loud “POI” to audibly indicate to the speaker that they want to be recognized, or (2) they can be put in the chat and partners of the speaker can reply to those/tag team. THIS DOES NOT MEAN pasting large blocks of text in the chat box. It should be brief. No articles from news sources, no long wordy answers. If you engage in any of these behaviors you’ll get one warning. After that, I will drop you.

Speed:

I am not comfortable with a high speed debate. Please do not spread or move quickly, slightly above conversational speed is fine.

I am a novice with respect to debating and judging. However, I do look forward to learning more and have expertise in public policy and applied economics.

In my limited experience with judging, I've learned to appreciate clarity of expression over speed.

I also appreciate arguments based on highly rigorous evidence and sources over those grounded in anecdote and conjecture.

Finally, I also value arguments motivated by explicit norms and goals that can include not only self or national interest but also ethical principles.

Hi, this is my second year judging parliamentary debate, last year I judged parliamentary novice for my twins. I don't have prior parliamentary debate experience (like in high school), but I do understand many world topics that might be discussed in the debate round. I also have picked up knowledge of debate terminology when discussing them with my sons. Here is my stance on certain parliamentary debate aspects:

Theory: I understand the fundamental steps of the theory shell, but it needs to be well explained for me to flow it through in a debate round. I don't have any issue with a team running theory, but it just has to be well structured and explained.

K's: I do not have much knowledge of K's so you would have to explain it well to me if I am going to flow it through in a debate round. I am always open to learning new things so if you can explain it well I might vote on it.

Permutations: I understand what a permutation is, and the idea of mutually exclusive plans. You don't have to explain in large detail what a perm is, just explain to me why you can perm it.

PICs: I understand the idea of a Plan Inclusive Counterplan, you might go into a little detail on what it is, but then again like permutations, I understand the basics.

Overall I am not going to vote against you just because I don't like that you are running theory, K's, etc. I am open to any aspects of parliamentary debate being run in a round, they just need to be logical and well explained for me to vote on them.

Ok, moving on to other things I like debaters to do in a round:

I tend to give feedback on how well a debater can address something to me. For instance, if a debater is moving around a lot or making other distracting gestures, I definitely tell them this in my feedback (harder to do online though), but it won't have any real bearing on my flow. Overall the main things debate has to offer in life is knowledge of world events and practice articulating your point of view. If a speaker cannot speak in an orderly and smooth fashion this will definitely be considered in my flow. I am ok with debaters talking a little bit fast, but if you are spreading I might not catch all your points. I would suggest talking at a moderate pace and taking up most (if not all) of the allotted time.

Overall have positive energy in the round and act like you want to be in the debate round. I know 4-5 rounds can be a lot of debating so don't stress it.

UPDATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022: Please be aware that as of February 24, 2022, the post-Cold War geopolitical/international security world underwent a monumental (and likely permanent) change. If you are going to make any arguments -- whether you're AFF or NEG, asserting internal links or existential impacts -- built around a conventional war in Europe; America's, NATO's, or Russia's propensities to escalate; the threshold between conventional and nuclear conflict; etc., please ensure that your evidence is up-to-date and timely (and, yes, that probably means written sometime after February 24, 2022) and/or please be prepared and able to explain logically and analytically how any older evidence/logic still applies in light of real-world developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Also be aware that if you read evidence (or make an argument) that fails to take account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will almost certainly accept your opponent's analytical arguments -- provided they're logical and persuasive in post-February 24 terms -- as more valid than out-of-date evidence and pre-invasion academic theorizing. And your opponents should feel free to ask you, in CX, to explain how and why any pre-February 24 evidence/arguments are still applicable to the position you're advocating or negating. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the world of geopolitics and international security has been radically altered over the past six months. Also, be aware that I spent a large chunk of my 30-year diplomatic career working on NATO issues (including stints at NATO headquarters and on the NATO desk at the State Department). While I don't expect high school debaters to understand or appreciate every detail or nuance of how the Alliance functions on a day-to-day or issue-to-issue basis, please do your best to avoid completely mischaracterizing NATO decision-making or policy implementation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note on Timekeeping: In all forms of debate I expect competitors to keep their own time (to include tracking prep time for both themselves and their opponents). Also, debaters should keep track of their opponent’s time (including prep). I will make an exception for novices at their first few tournaments, but otherwise time yourselves, please.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After retiring from a three-decade career in the U.S. Foreign Service, I returned to high school debate as a (volunteer) coach and frequent judge in 2013. I'm no longer the head coach at Oak Hill School (as of June 2020), but I still provide some assistance (to South Eugene High School) and judge fairly regularly. Beyond that, I teach public policy and international affairs -- as adjunct faculty -- at the Univ. of Oregon.

CX Paradigm (you should read this even I'm judging you in a different debate format because it speaks to my overall approach): My judging style and philosophy has evolved significantly over the past decade. While I still consider myself more of a truth-over-tech/policymaking-paradigm judge, I don't believe -- as some would suggest -- that policymaker automatically equates with a simple utilitarian approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within a government or other policymaking body, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to an alternative framework if one of the teams can convince me that that alternative framework should or best applies.

And while I have an inherent bias toward the realistic (particular as it involves global security issues such as nuclear weapons, NATO and Russia, and the nature and distribution of power and influence within the international state system), I'm fine with K debate. That said, although I know my Marx/Engels/Lenin pretty well from my academic training and Foreign Service experience in Moscow and the former Soviet bloc, if you want to run French post-modernist arguments -- or anything of that sort -- you'll need to explain it to me in terms I can understand and appreciate. And that may mean slowing down enough to make yourself more comprehensible and persuasive. I would also advise you against running any sort of performance AFF...I'll judge it if you run it, but it's as difficult for me to evaluate as Dramatic Interp. For better or worse, I still view the resolution as the starting point of any policy debate, and I still believe that an AFF case needs some version -- however abbreviated -- of a case and a plan. And case matters. A significant percentage of the AFF ballots I write end up noting that NEG essentially conceded case...that shouldn’t be the norm. (And, yes, on the other side of that I still very much believe that presumption lies with the NEG...and that going for it is a legit approach that can easily win a debate for NEG if AFF fails to meet its burdens.) Unless something is truly and grossly abusive, I am not particularly keen on RVIs or similar arguments for a behavior as opposed to a policy issue on the flow.

As for T, I am more than open to T arguments and will vote NEG on T if the AFF can't make a coherent topicality defense. But be aware that I have a very inclusive topicality threshold (to put it in 2014-15 oceans topic terms, if a case involved salt water I was ready to accept it as reasonable... provided the AFF made that argument).

I'm good with aggressive spreading, but recommend you slow down enough to allow me to hear and easily flow your tag lines and organizational structure; sign-posting may seem old-fashioned, but if you want me to flow your argument in the correct spot, intelligible sign-posting remains an important element in the process. Pet peeve addressed to 1NCs: LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS, please. 'Next' is not a label. Off-case, tell me whether you're reading T, a DISAD, a CP, a K, or something else. Similarly, ‘case’ is not a label. Tell me where you want your argument flowed. It may seem 100% clear to you, but it may not be as clear to me (even if I have your speech within the email chain). Assuming there is an email chain, I expect to be part of it: eddinska@gmail.com.

Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is completely overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.

Lincoln-Douglas and Parli Paradigm: I'm pretty much tabula rasa in both these formats, happy to judge the debate as it's presented and debated. I will always be a flow judge (who values line-by-line clash as much as possible). But I'm generally more 'progressive' in judging LD and Parli than I am in judging Policy. Go figure. In both LD and Parli, I very much appreciate theory/framework arguments. I also think both LD and Parli debates benefit from explicit plans/advocacies, which thus opens up the NEG option of CPs/counter-advocacies. Ditto K debate in LD and Parli...go for it, provided you know what you're doing (and can present the K clearly and coherently). Basically, the more LD and Parli resemble Policy, the better.

Public Forum Paradigm: You should follow the rules, of course, but I'm comfortable with pushing the limits (in terms of advocacies and counter-advocacies and such)...that said, I'm open to the other team pushing back on PF rules/norms regarding plans and CPs and such (i.e., to debate the very theory of PF). In a more traditional PF round, I see framework as a key element; it's important to establish (and win) your framework (and then, having secured the framework, explain how and why it matters to your case). I will always evaluate the debate off my flow, so line-by-line clash and full coverage of the key issues are important. That means that what passes for spreading in PF is fine with me...you don't have much time for each speech, I know, so use what you have to the fullest. Again, PF is kinda/sorta Policy Lite, and I'll always prefer -- but not insist upon -- a more Policy-like approach.

Hi, I'm a lay judge who you should assume, knows nothing about the topic. Please no spreading or circuit type arguments-- they will just fly over my head. Don't pref me unless you want a lay round.

Former LD/PF coach @ James Logan (2018-2020)

Update 1/16/21 for MLK: No longer actively involved in debate, haven't judged since NSDA 2020. Paradigm below was written in late 2019. Likely that not much has changed but my pen and ears are rusty and I haven't followed current topics or meta developments, so do with that information what you will.

~~~~~

My experience: Debated on the LD circuit from 2008-2012, returned to debate as a coach in 2018. Debate has changed a lot in the years I've been gone, and I rarely get the chance to judge progressive rounds, so I may have a higher than average expectation of explanation for common positions/interpretations.

As a debater I generally ran stock, wholerez arguments and tended towards simple FW/case debate. I ran my fair share of off-case positions as well, but I've never been especially well-read so don't expect me to know your lit.

Most of my experience was from a meta shifting from truth-testing to comparative worlds paradigms. While I'm fine adopting another paradigm (e.g. LARPing) if you want me to, I may not handle some nuanced situations perfectly and may be a bit out of touch on current conventions.

Generally tech > truth. I'll vote on pretty much anything if you tell me how I'm supposed to. I see the role and function of my ballot as open to debate. In the absence of an explicit statement or obvious agreement (e.g. everyone's LARPing, competing K's with implied precedence, etc.), I will default to a comparative worlds paradigm.

Some miscellaneous things:

- Most speed is fine, but I don't judge fast rounds often anymore so clear signposting is very important to me. If your speed is elite you may need to cut back a bit. I will only call "clear" 1-2 times.

- I'm particularly bad at flowing theory, so definitely slow down a bit and make your interp and standards clear.

- I base speaks primarily on strategy and clarity. Issue selection, efficiency, weighing and crystallization = 28.5+

- I may not accept extensions without re-articulation of warrants, even on drops.

- I expect PF summary speakers to extend both case and refutations. I won't extend arguments into FF that weren't in summary.

Each team member who speak for first time please say your name.

First speaker from each team, please states clearly the Topic to be debated and also shows good understanding of the keywords in the topic.

Demonstrate good debate skills and not digress from the Topics.

Good luck!

I am a parent judge with no debate experience. Please be organized in your presentation and avoid spreading. My daughter has explained the basic rules to me such as POIs and POOs.

I look forward to hearing all of your presentations.

This is my third year judging parliamentary debates; my son is on the debate team at Berkeley High School. In real life, I am an attorney and a significant portion of my practice involves litigating appeals on behalf of defendants convicted of crimes. I would rather be convinced by substantive arguments than "theory" technicalities.

Last update: 8 November, 2023 for NPDI

I have mostly retired from judging but pop back in every once in a while. My familiarity with events is as follows: Parli > PF > Policy > LD > others. With that in mind, please be clear with the framework with which you would like me to evaluate the round. I will hold myself to the evaluative method defined within the context of each round. Absent one, expect that I will make whatever minimum number of assumptions necessary to be able to evaluate the round. If I find that I cannot evaluate the round... well just don't let it get there. Have fun!

Pronouns: he/him/his

Background:

-Coaching history: The Nueva School (2 yrs), Berkeley High School (2 yrs)

-Competition history: Campolindo (4 yrs, 2x TOC)

•TLDR: read what you want and don't be a bad person.

-If you do not understand the terminology contained in this paradigm, I encourage you to ask me before and/or after the round for clarification

-Please read: Be inclusive to everyone in the debate space - I will drop teams who impede others from accessing it or making it a hostile environment. Structural violence in debate is real and bad. I reserve any and every right to believe that if you have made this space violent for others, you should lose the round because of it. If you believe your opponents have made the round inaccessible to you, give me a reason to drop them for it (ie. theory). Respect content warnings. Ignoring them is an auto-loss. Respect pronouns. Deliberately ignoring them / misgendering is an auto-loss. Outing people purposefully / threatening to do so is an auto-loss. Intentional deadnaming is an auto loss. I am willing to intervene against the flow as I see fit to resolve these harms. I am prepared and willing to defend any decision to tab. If there is any way that I can help you be more comfortable in this space let me know and I will see what I can do :)

•Case

-Terminalize and weigh impacts

-Uniqueness must be in the right direction

-Most familiar with UQ/L/IL/I structure, but open to other formats as long as its organized and logical

-Read good, specific links

-No impacts, no offense

-Counterplan strats are cool. do CP things, defend the squo, do whatever you want

-Use warrants

•Theory and the such

-Competing interps > reasonability, if you read reasonability it better have a brightline / a way for me to evaluate reasonability

-Friv T, NIB, or presumption triggers: not my preferred strat but if explained and justified, I have and will vote on it

-Read your RVI, justify why you get access to it

-Drop the team, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-Weigh standards, voters

-No preference for articulated vs potential abuse, have that debate and justify

•Kritik

-I won't fill in your blanks, the K must explain itself through its articulation, not its clarification

-Beware of reading identity based arguments that you are not a constituent of

-I'll listen to your K aff, justify not defending the resolution or lmk how your K aff defends the res

-Your alt/advocacy/performance better do something (or not! justify it!)

-Links must be specific, link of omission/generic links <<<<< specific links

•Misc:

-I am not a points fairy.

-if you want me to flow things well, tagline everything and signpost well

-have a strategy, read offense, collapse, justify your impact framing

-Have the condo debate, I don't default

-a thing with explanation and a warrant > a thing with no warrant but an explanation > a thing with no warrant and no explanation

-Default layering is T>=FW>K>Case, but I am easily convinced otherwise given justification

-I can flow your speed (300+ is a bit much for online, but if i can hear it, its fine), "clear" means clear, "slow" means slow

-Speak any way you would like, so long as I can hear your speech you're fine I don't mind what else you do

-I by default track if arguments in rebuttals are new, but if you are unsure if I have flowed it as new, call the POO. When in doubt, call the POO - I will identify whether or not the POO defines an argument that is new.

-Presumption flows neg unless neg reads an advocacy, in which case presumption flows aff, i will vote on presumption but it makes me sad

-tag teaming is fine, but I only flow what the speaker says

-I don't flow POI answers, but they are binding

-if you have texts to pass, do so quickly and within the speech or during flex

-high threshold for intervening in the debate, but I will do so if justified and is the last resort

-i flow speeches, not cross, but again cross is binding

-please time yourselves. i will not time you. if you go egregiously over time I will stop you and tank your speaks

-don't be rude in cross

-i will not call for a card unless the validity of the argument it warrants determines the debate

-don't paraphrase your card or powertag, if you feel like you have to paraphrase, you probably can find a better card

-read offense, I'll only vote on things in the last speech, so if you want me to vote on it, it better be extended through the other speeches explicitly

-put me on the email chain, dgomezsiu [at] berkeley [dot] edu

-if you want extra feedback or have questions, email ^ or facebook messenger is a good place to reach me

Although I have judged multiple tournaments, I have never debated or actively coached or taught debate. I prefer you explain everything clearly and to the point. Prefer debaters write the resolution on the whiteboard (if available ) and their names who is in affirmation and who is in opposition along with order pf speakers.

1. No spreading (speak slowly)

2. Be articulate and speak clearly and loudly

3. Off-time road mapping is preferred

4. Keep track of your own time, and I will only consider what you said in your time.

Don't spread to a degree where you become incomprehensible. I will stop flowing.

Don't drop arguments. I won't vote on them unless the debate is extremely close.

TLDR: I am a parent judge who did high school policy debate in the 80s. I won state (WA) my senior year. OK to speak fast, but a little above conversational speed is probably what I am most comfortable with. I will tell you slow/clear as needed. I am unfamiliar with theory and the K, so if you run these please explain them very carefully and justify them. If I do not understand your argument, I will probably not vote for you. Weigh in the rebuttals and tell me how I should evaluate the round - this makes my job easy and makes it easier for you to win my ballot. Homophobic/sexist/racist comments and other abuse will not be tolerated. If you abuse your opponents in any way I will drop you and tank your speaks.

Case: Please weigh in the rebuttals, it makes my job and yours a lot easier. Make clear, concise arguments.

Theory: I have a rudimentary understanding of T and how it functions in a round, but please explain your shell very well. Give me a clear interp, standards and voters as well as how I should be weighing T(ex. apriori). Do not run friv T. Prove to me that abuse has happened in the round and that you have an actual reason for running T other than to get an easy route to the ballot and dodge your opponent's case.

I do not understand RVIs and IVIs. Please do not run them. If you do, I will most likely not understand it and vote you down anyways, so it is in your best interest not to.

K: I have virtually zero knowledge about K lit and the structure of the K in general. I would prefer you not to run K’s but if you must, explain how it is relevant to the round. Still, keep in mind that there is a high chance I will not understand your argument and will vote against you as a result.

Speaks: I judge speaks mostly on substance and persuasiveness, not much on individual style. If you are abusive in any way/attempt to spread your opponents out of the round (although a certain amount of speed is fine - just don't be abusive with it), I will dock your speaks.

I am a volunteer judge for Wilcox HS (Santa Clara, CA) and this is my third year of judging. I have judged multiple formats (LD, PF, Parli) at both the novice and varsity levels.

Here are some things to keep in mind:

- Speak slowly and clearly. Spreading won't help if I cannot understand what you are saying.

- Keep your own time.

- Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver organized speeches, based on your off time roadmap. It's easier for me to keep track that way.

- I do take notes throughout the round so make sure you emphasize your important contentions/points. Clearly state voting issues in your final speech to tell me what to base my decision on.

- Overall, remember to remain respectful during the round (to your opponents, and to the judge). It is important to be assertive in your arguments but no yelling, interrupting, etc. I will take away speaker points if I have to.

- Please try to stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon. If you are going to use a technical term, it is imperative that you explain it to me (as the judge) as well as in the debate space.

- Lastly, remember that the goal of debate is education and productive discourse. I prioritize inclusiveness over overtechnical strategies. This means that if your opponent is a relatively new varsity debater, and cannot engage with theory, K, etc, do NOT run them. If you do run those strategies, simply to gain an easy win rather that engaging and arguing the topic with your opponent, I will NOT vote for you because you are making the debate space exclusive. I would much rather see a strict case debate (value, framework, counter plan) rather than judge high level arguments (theory, K), because at the end of the day, we want to become more educated and better informed in our society.

Otherwise, good luck and have fun!

In a debate round, I like to see unique arguments that have solid logic and links to impacts, as well as organized presentation. Please explain clearly if you'd like to run technical arguments or counters. You'll get higher speaker points (my average ranges from 27-28) if you give clear and persuasive arguments and go over the flow. Most importantly, have fun!

I have been judging debate rounds for the last 7 years, and high school debate rounds for the last 3 years.

I judge by deliberating on the overall presentation of the debaters, including arguments and delivery.

I prefer a slower round of debate, that allows for a more involved, persuasive style of debate.

I prefer less debate technicalities, and more common sense arguments to make your points.

I'm a "lay judge". But you may not be out of luck because I try very hard to be objective and fair. Not all flow judges do that. I need you to do one thing to help me help you: never spread! Slow down so that I can track your flow more easily.

Yes I do track your flow. And I have a specially-purposed spreadsheet for that. I'm pretty good at analytical thinking. Impacts work only if you show me a clear link. As a matter of fact, if you try to "impact" me too hard with un-sustained contentions, I will disregard the point entirely.

I use common sense to judge. I don't have particular philosophy around tech-over-truth or truth-over-tech, because I don't believe competitive debate is a sport only debaters can understand and do. In fact, Debate is our daily life. 99% of the audience who watch presidential debates know nothing about T, K, POO or POI. But at the end of the day, it is the debater's job to use common sense to convince the "lay audience" to vote for him/her. You will be much better off with me if you think "how can I convince a stranger I meet in the coffee shop to vote for me?", instead of "how can I convince a national debate champion to vote for me?".

Now you know what principles I use when I judge a debate. Specifically:

- Point Of Order. I know what it is. You don't need to explain it to me. If you think you hear a POO, briefly explain to me why you think this is a POO. The debater who is accused of POO can briefly contest that. But don't spend too much time arguing about it. Leave the call to me.

- Dropping points. You actually can drop points without being penalized by me. Before you laugh at me, here are more details: if your opponent has a well-sustained contention and you drop it, you get penalized - pretty badly. If your opponent has a very weak contention and you pick it up and attack hard, you score. If your opponent has a weak contention and you drop it, I don't care. I actually find boring and tasteless if you go over all your points and your opponent's points just to "cover all the bases" without any depths. Again think about how presidential candidates win a debate. They don't do it by saying "hey you dropped one of my points that barely matters". They win a debate by focusing on a few contentions and sufficiently sustain them, or pick out a weak contention of the opponent and attack hard.

- Point of Information. I in general follow the rule of 2 for POIs. The speaker is expected to take 2 POIs. It's ok if you take less but it would be a slight negative sign to me, especially if you are running a weak flow that leaves quite a few holes to plug. The opposing team is expected to offer no more than 2 POIs. You can offer more if the speakers take them (they don't have to). Offer and accept POIs with proper etiquette please. It not only shows you are a professional debater, but also gives you extra time to phrase your point or response more concisely.

- About Kritik. I don't mind K's. As a matter of fact I like them. But don't expect me to have been trained on all different kinds of K's. And I don't care all the links, impacts, and alternatives. I only care about if you can explain it in a way that any reasonably intelligent person can understand, and clearly state why it matters. Again, think about common sense. If you think you can run an anthropocentrism K successfully in front of a group of audience who know nothing about debate (yes you can if you do it right!), you have a good chance to run it with me.

Finally - I know you will feel (who doesn't!) that I'm a great judge if you win and I'm a lame one if you lose. And I do make mistakes. However please be assured that I'm trying very hard to be fair and objective, because I know all of you are trying very hard to be good at debate too! Debate is fun. So just try to have fun and don't give up. All of us will get better as long as we try hard and we don't give up.

I am a parent judge who has been judging in Parliamentary for the past 3 years. I appreciate clarity and logic above everything. Make sure that you thoroughly address your opponent's points. Don't speak too fast, I find that debaters often lose out on content and emphasis from "spreading."

I prefer case debate, but if you must run more technical arguments, make sure to explain them thoroughly. I will require more explanation and convincing for arguments that are further away from the topic.

I have a basic understanding of topicalities. Not too familiar with theory (dislike frivolous theory) or kritiks.

Have fun and good luck!

Hello, this is my second year judging and I really enjoy listening to all of you young, thoughtful, eloquent debaters.

Speak clearly and it helps if you organize your points for me. I will keep track of the flow, but I will also consider the strength of your arguments.

Mainly, I am looking for you to convince me that you are right.

I am a flay judge.

I look for clear statement of the topics, understand the flow you will take for the debate.
No critics please.

Make sure to have good impacts and solid evidence.

Don’t drop any refutes or contentions.

I am relatively new to judging parliamentary debate. Please speak at a reasonable rate, define your terms, and make clear links from policy to impacts. Avoid complicated debate jargon and Kritiks. Use theory only if you believe that there has been an abusive definition, or that your opposition has gone off topic. Don’t abuse POIs or POOs. Neg. Counterplans are acceptable. The team that educates me on the topic and makes their case clearly and respectfully will get my ballot.

About me:

- 2nd year debate parent/judge

Your keys to success:

- Don't speak when the other team is speaking (other than Parli POI) - not even whispering, written notes only

- Speak clearly and slowly/moderately

- Give logical weight to the arguments

- Fewer arguments clearly supported are stronger than quantity

- Tag teaming? no (don't speak while partner is speaking or switch off)

- Please keep time and wrap up on time so that I don't have to interrupt to stop

I am relatively new as a judge for debate, so essentially what I value from debate teams are:

concise and clear speech, not too fast, logical arguments, backed up with empirical evidence and past precedence, data and stats. I have a background in engineering and financial service, so I am used to data driven decision making, and will weigh more heavily on economical impacts in terms of net benefits. I am open minded, so which team is able to deliver their messages and convince me the most will likely be the winner of the round.

Do not try running theory, unless it's very critical to the round. If you do run, make sure I understand exactly, what the theory shell is, and WHY it is absolutely important. Theory that is run should then be a priori, and make sure you repeat the situation and why.

tldr: Treat me as you would any other lay judge.

A little bit of background information: I have been judging parliamentary debate for about 7 years. I prefer arguments that are simple and well reasoned.

Homophobia, transphobia, racism, etc. will not be tolerated and you will be dropped and receive low speaker points if you exclude anyone from the round.

Otherwise:

⁃ Numbered arguments are easier to follow

⁃ Quality over quantity when it comes to the number of arguments

⁃ I would prefer if you didn’t spend too much time debating things on the top of case unless it has a significant impact on the rest of your round

⁃ Impact out your arguments and tell me why you outweigh the other side

⁃ If there are any specific abuses in the round, please tell me slowly and clearly what rule they broke and why they should be dropped, and I will consider it

TL; DR

I’m open to most arguments as long as they’re not sexist, racist, ableist, etc. Don’t berate your opponents, debate cleanly. Open to T and Ks apart from Give Back the Land and other identity arguments concerning identities you don’t share (you should know why the large percentage of you should not be running this). I’m tabula rasa to an extent; I won’t buy that the sky is green but if you say something like “x country has y policy” and there’s no response on the flow, that’ll fly.

Ask me any other questions you may have before the round! :-)

Long Version:

Background- I’ve done Varsity High School Parli Debate at Evergreen Valley High School, qualified to the TOC as a senior, and was active in almost every Bay Area-based tournament over the 2015-2018 seasons. I’ve also done a bit of LD. I currently attend UC Berkeley as a junior Political Science and Data Science double major. Pronouns she/her/hers.

Etiquette- Please do not shake my hand; it’s a pointless formality. I don’t factor what you wear or anything like that into your speaker points. I hate speaker points and try to be as objective as possible, but for errors in terms of frivolous theory, rudeness, etc, I will drop you .5 speaks each instance. Don’t be rude to your opponents. Loud whispering isn’t respectful while the other team is speaking; try to keep your volume down or write notes to one another instead. I also don’t really care if you stand or sit, or if you dress up; make yourself comfortable so you can debate the best that you can. Don’t flip pens. Try to use all the time given. Be clear.

I will, however, tank your speaks and drop you if you use abusive (sexist, racist, ableist, Islamophobic, etc.) rhetoric and try to spread your opponents out of the round- I am generally fine with speed but your opponents may not be, and especially if they say slow or clear and you fail to adjust, I will have more reason to drop speaker points.

Arguments-

Case: Case debate should be pretty straightforward. I’m tabula rasa to a rational extent. Try to link your arguments clearly and signpost so I know where to look on the flow. I won’t make extensions for you, so make sure you articulate what it is you're extending, why it flows through, and where I’m making the extension. Do not restate your previously made points as a response without explanation of why the response reapplies/don't just reiterate your offense as defense. Use evidence where you can, I'm not looking things up but it definitely helps to be/appear accurate and factual. If I don't understand what you're saying (as in it's a structurally deficient or blipped argument) I won't flow it. Please terminalize your impacts, don't just say "lives" or "economy". Please do some kind of weighing or aff world vs. neg world analysis in your voters as well.

Theory: I enjoy theory debate, when it is done well. While I find frivolous theory annoying, if the other team doesn’t respond adequately and you prove to me why you win and run it structurally well I’ll have reason to vote on it. Again, make sure you signpost and make clear responses. I shouldn’t be doing any of the work for you.

Kritiks: I liked debating Kritiks and watching rounds where they are run well. I’m cool with Aff and Neg Ks. I can easily tell when you are running a K to skew your opponents out of a round, so please avoid doing that as at the end of the day, we all want an equitable debate where people can learn; otherwise the activity becomes useless. Try to avoid running the K if you don’t really understand it because then the ideology will become very convoluted and there will be a lot of holes in your argumentation, and it will be hard for me and the other team to understand. Don’t expect me to vote on something I cannot understand. Arguments I’m very familiar with include Orientalism, Capitalism/Marxist Kritiks, Transhumanism and Feminism. Don’t run Give Back the Land or identity arguments where you don’t actually share that identity, because then it becomes apparent you’re exploiting that identity for your personal gain. Sign post well. Speak clearly and always tell me which link or impact you are responding to if responding to a K. Make sure your links are contextualized in a manner that makes it clear how the other team's epistemology/rhetoric/etc. is connected to whatever impacts you discuss. Terminalize your impacts please! And make ROTB clear.

default to K, T, case. Competing interps over reasonability.

Bottom line is, try to have fun, be inclusive, and learn something.

I am a relatively new judge, so please explain everything clearly and thoroughly. If you want to run Theories or Ks, you can, but explain it to me as a parent judge, and not as a flow judge. Keep track of your own time, and I will only consider what you said in your time. Please do not spread, and talk in a loud, clear tone which is easy to understand.

Parent Judge.

I have judged at many middle school tournaments and high school tournaments including JV and Varsity but explain your contentions.

Do not spread. If you do, I will most likely stop writing on my paper and give you an auto-loss.

I like to evaluate on your method of weighing and your ability to provide reasonable arguments with support. Lots of debaters use net benefits, but if you want to use something different go ahead! Just make sure arguments actually tie to it.

Otherwise, have fun!

I am a parent or lay judge with a few years of experience. I come with an open mind, eager to learn and be impressed by your knowledge, oratory skills, and respect for your team mate and opponents. POI's are OK, abusive heckling - not ok. I look forward to an educational experience.

I am a second year parent judge, and have judged about 5 tournaments. No confusing theory, try to stray away from using K's. You can spread, but spread reasonably so I can understand everything you are saying. Make your arguments and contentions clear so I can write down what you are saying, and articulate to me why your side won and why I should vote for you.

I'm a fairly new parent judge. I'll try to avoid considering issues not brought up in the round as much as possible, but I'll have trouble accepting that the moon is made of cheese or other similar statements. I'd like as clear of a debate as possible-if you don't convince me, as a reasonably competent layperson, I'm not going to vote for you.

I'll let you know if you are going too fast: if you don't respect this, you probably aren't going to get my ballot. Being violent towards your opponents or abusing power dynamics in the round will not get you my ballot. Be civil, but passion is absolutely accepted.

I'll give everyone a 29 as long as you aren't violent, overtly rude, or condescending in round.

I am a parent judge.

-Speak slowly.

-Avoid running Theory or Ks. If you chose to, be as clear as possible or just explain it without the technical terms.

-Make sure to signpost, and both sides should have offense as well as defense (if your case just has defense then I will prefer the opponent's case)

-Explain links clearly and include warrants to back it up!

-I will vote on whichever side provides the best logical arguments.

Lastly... make sure to have fun! (I don't mind a joke or two!)

Hello,

I am a fairly new judge to parliamentary debate. Please go slow and clearly. Thanks

Hello :). I am a college student and have judged a handful of times. I do not know many tech aspects of debating, however I have been called a Flay judge. I value clear presentation and good flow, as well as how many supporting facts I hear and their quality. I go into every round prepared to be convinced through facts that one side is correct over the other. I wish everybody good luck.

- I WILL drop you under all circumstances for not reading trigger or content warnings. Lack of content warnings when discussing issues such as addiction, mental health, physical harm, abuse, etc, as well as racist or offensive behavior will cause me to drop you, without exception. If you are unclear about whether something needs a content warning, message me.

- I will NOT dock you for not using all your time. If you do not have anything more to say, end the speech instead of repeating points. It is not a good use of anyone's time to do otherwise.

- Speak slowly, do not spread your opponent out of the round. If you do not respond to requests to slow down from either myself or your opponents, I will drop you. If I cannot understand a point, I will drop it. Do NOT gish gallop - I will drop you.

- Theory and RVIs are *acceptable*, but I will usually not go for them unless the violation is severe. Define jargon when used to make the theory more accessible to both myself and your opponents. Do not run friv theory.

- Do not run a K. I understand them but do not believe they are valuable to debate.

- Aff state resolution

- opponents keep time. I will not call out going over time if opponents do not call it out. Raise hands to call time, if there is no response in 20 seconds then unmute. Any argument 20 seconds over time will be ignored if the opponent calls out time.

Explain any complex debate terms/rules

Speak at a moderate pace

I have only judged since 2020. I look for good organization and evidence. I can judge debates of any speed.

PF coach for Los Altos & Mountain View. Competed in congress & PF when I was a student.

Brief off-time roadmaps are fine when needed. Be sure to signpost and let me know which arguments you're addressing. Please don't spread– you will do better if I'm actually able to flow everything you say. When addressing a case line by line (such as in rebuttal), try not to jump around. Go down the flow from top to bottom.

By summary and final focus, you should collapse on the arguments you feel are the most important. Tell me what your key voter issues are and why you believe you're winning those issues.

If you and your opponent have evidence that say opposite things, extending your evidence has to be more than just re-stating it. Why should I prefer your evidence? Why does it still stand even with the evidence your opponents presented?

Weighing needs to be comparative. It's not enough to say your impacts are big– the important thing is they're bigger than your opponents'.

Speaker points are awarded based on confidence, appropriate volume & pace, sportsmanship, and overall demeanor.

Not a big fan of theory or Ks.

Good luck and don't be afraid to ask any questions you have before the round!